Comments on The Pensive Quill: The Book of Genitals

Tamerlane, not to worry about ariving late. You ar...

2009-01-10T06:21:00.000Z

Tamerlane, not to worry about ariving late. You are welcome. Leprechauns - why not? Fair point about Palin

Yes, Dawkins can be smug, but attribute that to hi...

2009-01-10T04:50:00.000Z

Yes, Dawkins can be smug, but attribute that to his getting old. You cannot deny the impact of his monumental opus.

I strayed in here accidentally, an American PUMA and Dawkins fan. I admire Sarah Palin, even though I disagree with most of her positions. She did go on the record as saying that science ought only be taught in science classes. For the record, she never sought to ban any books, either.

AM,
In science, it's not about 'proving'. Anything that can't be/disproven/, then it must be rejected. As Feynman used to retort to students' conjectures: "That's not even good enough to be wrong!" (Stray Taoist, that answers your gripe viz. the veracity of the Bible.)

I upset a lot of folks by saying that I can substitute the noun of their argument (i.e., God, Chi, the Soul, meridians, subluxations) with "leprechauns", and the argument suffers no detriment logically.

Wow, you guys are in October. Oh well.

Stray Taoist, don't suppose there is much chance o...

2008-10-26T15:36:00.000Z

Stray Taoist, don't suppose there is much chance of you making it to the unoccupied 26 soon! Too much of the easy life where you are. I would never dispute the flatness of the earth. I know a guy who fell off the edge and landed on his head and now believes decommissioning didn't happen. I do like Dawkins although I take your point about the smugness. I doubt if it is defensible to say that science does not disprove the bible. It does not disprove the existence of god but the bible is a different matter. It does not bear up to scientific scrutiny. Of course you are right it is not a text book but when some are intent on saying it should be taught in the science class as defensible science then there is the need to dismiss it on scientific grounds. Nobody lives their life by the bible so you'll get little in the way of argument from me on that. Now to surprise you, I do read theology. Just at the minute I am browsing through Frank Sheed's theology for beginners. Which is cheating a bit given that I am hardly a beginner. I read a lot of it in jail including six of Copleston's history which dealt with much theology. I have one by Hans Kung to start once time allows me. Hope all is well with you.

The whole literal interpretation of the Bible is a...

2008-10-18T20:49:00.000+01:00

The whole literal interpretation of the Bible is a relatively late concept, and would have made no sense in (and thereafter) the time it was recorded. It is quite sad that the whole mythos and logos have got quite confused post-1850-odd.

Not what I wanted to say, though.

What I did is that can you prove the Earth *isn't* flat? Isn't that just another believe-what-you-are-told? When I make it to the unoccupied twenty-six counties, I will challenge you to prove to me the earth is an oblate sphere. (Believe it or not, it takes quite a lot of physics to prove so, from a sat-in-the-pub position.)

I don't like Dawkins. At all. Smug git that he is. And that is the basis of it, I can't listen to the man. (Of course, most people don't realise the holes in evolutionary theory, and mis-represent it as survival of the fittest. I always suggest people read the *original* papers, not other people's interpretation of them.)

Science does not disprove the Bible. It is more a nonsense to try and *apply* science to the Bible. It isn't a text book (in that sense, heh.) Again, don't try and apply mythos to logos, and vice-versa.

Now, what annoys *me* is people who say they live their lives by the Bible. Absolute nonsense. They don't. (Much as I would like to put my wife out a week every month, I couldn't get away with that.) The thing is, most of these people don't read the source material. And those that do, cherry-pick. (I know you don't appreciate it, but I like reading theology. Political theology, philosophical theology, theological philosophy, and all the variations I am too tired to permutate right now, when there is booze awaiting me...)

Fionnchú, you must have been reading my mind! I ca...

2008-10-15T19:21:00.000+01:00

Fionnchú, you must have been reading my mind! I can understand people beieving in the concept of god as many a robust intellectual defence has been made on behalf of the existence of a deity. Science shows it as unlikely but does not disprove it. But science does disprove the nonsense of the bible. How people stick to a literal interpretation of it boggles the mind.

Thanks for the great quote about Sumerians & g...

2008-10-14T21:24:00.000+01:00

Thanks for the great quote about Sumerians & glue. As you're reading about Sarah Palin now according to your sidebar, perhaps a future entry might expand on how she, daughter of a science teacher, wants to give equal time to the teaching of creationism along with Darwin in classrooms. I think that Palin averred that she'd seen handprints "inside dinosaur tracks," therefore proving that humans and Triceratops walked, or ran, hand in hand into the lava-hued sunset.